Greg, Erik:

I believe that the reason this discussion is popping up all over the world, (most pros dont argue about it...but then again.....) is simply because by being set in our ways, we are unwilling to look at things for what they are....(me included until recently...)

We are all trying to fit photography into our category...or our description... by choosing the categories about photography that we like and saying THIS is photography.... In other words, it is like saying that PR.com is JUST about the photo critique section, which is obviously false, or at least, incomplete....

Photography, as has been already mentioned, IS NOT and WAS NOT the image of reality.... but a copy of the photographer's vision...if we go into psychology just a wee bit, and if we try to remember how we felt when we developped the image we thought was great, and it turned out crap, we realize that a person's vision or "view" is selective....far more effectively than any DOF managed.... Which by default, sets the fact, that the camera TRIES to capture what we want it to capture....

Now....again.... I have not met, so far, any professional photographer, who even remotely complained about the issue at hand.... there was never an argument at the pro levels, the only mention about it is SPECIFICS.... when they see an image, they know what has been done with it....All assignment photography, will not have enough time to allow for "Faking"... and the only fixing will be the Adjustments....and the cloning out (cloning in is more time consuming when you are passing it off as part of the image)...As such these are still within the realm of the Darkroom process....

The issue rises, when the masses, holding their P&S, snap away, and then through PP come up with an image that is awesome, and pose it as a pro's image.....THAT is also not a problem for any of the pros....since not only is that image un-printable A3 size....but will almost always contain photographic mistakes.....

The debate here, is purely a debate between the Professional and the Semi-Pro, or hobbyist.... It is frustrating, on a consumer level to have to compete with people who have almost zero "camera" knowledge, and alot of time on their hands to learn and perfect their PostProcessing abilities....furthermore, when many Newspapers and/or magazines are starting what they so happily call "Citizen Journalism" there are many photojournalists that find themselves needing to cut prices in order to get the jobs....or start looking for other ways to make ends meet.... Then yes... this issue becomes a lot more serious....

As Photography is concerned its definition in the dictionary is very simple and precise:
The art or practice of taking and processing photographs
A photogrpah is: A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film, or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.

Obviously we can skip the chemical treatment in this discussion....And therefore, according to these 2 definitions it becomes pretty clear that this is not a matter of relativity, or one side wrong one side right... but a matter of BOTH sides having to join their definitions....

The image MUST start by being taken by a camera onto light-sensitive material, and then it will undergo processing to become a complete image....

Are there, then, any limits to processing?? why should there be?.... but! Are you then allowed to go use elements that you yourself did not take with a camera?? You could, but then you are no longer "the photographer who took this image"....

Simple and Clear....

As for the "Purist" type of photography, well again that falls under the category of LOMOGRAPHY, which take pictures as they are...no changing them, no fixing colors even.... of course they do not follow the usual photographic techniques, but....that is another story by itself!

Marc